Discussion Title: Should Private Cars Be Forbidden In Large Cities?

1. Private cars should be forbidden in large cities.
1.1. Con: Many public transportation systems are currently inadequate.
1.1.1. Con: Changes to services like public transport take time. As demand and necessity are increased, the service can be improved in a way that there is currently no incentive for in the status quo.
1.1.1.1. Con: Instead of banning cars, the government should provide incentives to use public transport and disincentives to use private cars.
1.1.2. Pro: Some large cities lack the ability to create large public transportation systems.
1.1.2.1. Pro: In Jerusalem it is really hard to expand the train system underground because there are ancient artifacts all over the city and if construction crews find one [they need to stop](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-10-08-mn-383-story.html) until all of the artifacts are carefully retrieved.
1.1.3. Con: Continual investment in roads diverts public investment from public transport.
1.1.3.1. Pro: The UK government will be spending [£27 billion](https://uk.motor1.com/news/403616/government-march-budget-roads-investment/) for the upkeep of roads over the next five years.
1.1.4. Pro: This would increase the burden on already overcrowded public transportation.
1.1.4.1. Pro: Public transportation can be quite unreliable and often face delays for various reasons.
1.1.4.1.1. Con: Trips by private vehicle can be quite unreliable and face delays for various reasons.
1.1.4.1.1.1. Pro: For example, unexpected traffic accidents can end up causing big traffic congestions.
1.1.4.2. Con: Public transport being the only means of motorised transport would incentivise the state to invest in public transport due to public pressure.
1.1.4.2.1. Con: Funds earmarked for public transportation are often used for other causes rather than improving the system.
1.1.4.2.1.1. Pro: Over the past two decades, at least [$850 million](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html) in tax revenue from M.T.A fares meant to be reinvested into NYC's subway infrastructure have been diverted to other projects.
1.1.4.2.1.1.1. Pro: Cuomo's administration [forced](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html) the M.T.A. in NYC to divert $5 million to bail out three state run ski resorts after a warm winter.
1.1.4.2.1.2. Pro: Politicians have a tendency to focus on flashy projects.
1.1.4.2.1.2.1. Pro: Fulton Station in NYC was [remodeled](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html) for $1.4 billion, way over its $750 million budget, including extras such as mirrors that filtered sunlight into underground passageways.
1.1.4.2.1.2.2. Pro: Washington D.C. [built](https://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2016/02/streetcar-mire?zid=302&ah=601e2c69a87aadc0cc0ca4f3fbc1d354) a $135 million streetcar line which serves the same line as the X2 bus, making it redundant.
1.1.4.2.2. Pro: Given politicians and those with a high degree of political influence will now be forced to use public transport, there is a strong incentive for them to ensure it functions well.
1.1.4.2.2.1. Con: Politicians are likely to be among the few [who can afford to take a taxi](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-09/politicians-entitlements-and-why-they-are-under-fire/8170082) to work everyday and therefore wouldn't be significantly affected by more common public transport such as buses and trains.
1.1.4.2.3. Pro: There are [many great public transportation systems](https://www.internationalteflacademy.com/blog/the-top-10-public-transportation-systems-around-the-world), and without cars even better ones will be developed.
1.1.4.2.3.1. Pro: The money which the state currently spends on building roads and parking spaces for cars could be used to improve public transport instead.
1.1.4.3. Pro: Delays on services run by Transport for London have doubled since 2013 [because of overcrowding](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/delays-caused-by-overcrowding-on-the-tube-have-doubled-since-2013-a3177881.html). Shifting more people into public transport will make this problem worse.
1.1.4.4. Pro: The [estimated](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-new-york-subway-delays-getting-worse-2017-8#decades-of-disinvestment-1) costs to bring the NYC subway system up to speed is $20 billion, with no current plan for funding in place.
1.1.5. Con: -> See 1.1.4.2.
1.1.6. Pro: Public transportation systems are often subject to political woes and mismanagement.
1.1.6.1. Pro: The investment in public transport is likely to fluctuate as different politicians take office and have differing priorities in public policy.
1.1.6.1.1. Pro: Accounting for inflation, The City of New York [contributed](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html) $1 billion to the M.T.A, the transportation authority of NYC, in 1990. In 2017, it contributed $250 million, representing a 75% decline.
1.1.6.1.2. Pro: Accounting for inflation, the overall budget of the M.T.A has barely [changed](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html) over the course of the past 25 years, despite a  nearly doubling in daily ridership.
1.1.6.1.3. Pro: The State of New York [failed](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html) to pass a much needed congestion pricing legislation in 2008 to help fund NYC's subways.
1.1.6.1.4. Pro: Over the past decade, the M.T.A. has [cut](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html) hundreds of mechanic positions despite signal problems car equipment failures occurring twice as frequently.
1.1.6.1.5. Pro: When Mr. Guiliani took office as the Mayor of New York City in 1994, he [cut](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html) the city's contribution to the M.T.A's budget by $400 million.
1.1.6.2. Con: -> See 1.1.4.2.3.1.
1.1.6.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.4.2.1.
1.1.6.4. Pro: During the Olympic games, Rio de Janeiro officials [favored](https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/aeb33e/rios-olympic-legacy-bus-system-is-leaving-poor-and-working-class-residents-behind) construction of public transportation in wealthy neighborhoods while ignoring disadvantaged areas of the city.
1.1.6.5. Pro: Many politicians in the United States [view](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses) public transportation as social welfare program rather than a public utility, resulting in less investment.
1.1.6.6. Con: -> See 1.1.4.2.
1.1.6.7. Pro: Many of the most [impoverished areas](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/stranded-how-americas-failing-public-transportation-increases-inequality/393419/) in American cities are also those with the least access to public transportation. Banning cars further limits access to jobs, goods, and services.
1.1.6.7.1. Pro: Limiting access to jobs, good, and services will only serve to exacerbate the problems faced by these impoverished communities.
1.1.7. Pro: Public transportation systems have limited coverage and accessibility in countries.
1.1.7.1. Pro: People often have to commute into large cities from areas in which there is no public transportation into the city.
1.1.7.1.1. Pro: People in the United States [increasingly](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Srvy_JobsProximity.pdf) live further away from jobs in metropolitan areas.
1.1.7.1.1.1. Con: This is a failure of the housing market and of urban planning.
1.1.7.1.2. Pro: In [Philadelphia](https://philly.curbed.com/2016/5/27/11795456/acs-commute-map-philadelphia), 253,000 people commute into the city everyday, while 146,825 residents travel outside the county.
1.1.7.1.3. Con: In our city there are huge savings made in the provision of carparking by encouraging people to get out of their cars.
1.1.7.1.4. Con: There is no reason why people could not mix it up by, for example, driving to a station outside the city and using public transport. As long as the cost of parking for the day in the city is more expensive than the cost of using public transport, this would be a benefit.
1.1.7.2. Pro: Public transport is less accurate in transporting passengers to a specific area.
1.1.7.2.1. Con: The accuracy of your arrival point in a city can be low as with a car as with public transport. The final leg of all journeys is always made on foot.
1.1.7.3. Con: Public transportation can be expanded massively and will be more extensive when all the space currently used by cars can be occupied by trams or buses instead.
1.1.7.4. Pro: Public transport can't cover travel within cities sufficiently.
1.1.7.4.1. Pro: Many large cities have parts of the city which are only accessible by car.
1.1.7.4.1.1. Pro: Numerous [parts](http://www.rioonwatch.org/?p=40085) of Rio de Janeiro lack public transportation infrastructure, and are only accessible via cars.
1.1.7.4.1.2. Con: This only makes case to \(re\)develop public transportation system before restricting the use of cars.
1.1.7.4.1.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.7.
1.1.7.4.2. Pro: Many individuals do not have access to public transportation in large cities.
1.1.7.4.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.7.4.1.1.
1.1.7.4.2.2. Pro: Around sixteen percent of Philadelphia households are [underserved](https://philly.curbed.com/2018/2/8/16984694/philadelphia-transportation-underserved-neighborhoods-map) by public transit.
1.1.7.4.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.7.
1.1.7.4.3. Pro: The United States has many [sprawling](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses) cities that cannot easily be served by public transportation.
1.1.7.4.3.1. Pro: Many cities in the United States are relatively new and [were](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses) built with the car in mind.
1.1.7.4.4. Con: Even if public transport cannot cover travel effectively, there are examples of [private companies](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/) providing very efficient transport in large cities.
1.1.7.4.5. Con: The lack of public transportation is due to the flexibility of cars, and the fact that cities are designed and refined to suit personal automobile transportation.
1.2. Pro: Cities would be safer if private cars were banned.
1.2.1. Pro: People tend to be more aggressive when they are behind the wheel. Also, many car accidents \(mainly caused by drunken drivers\) can be avoided, if there was a ban on private cars.
1.2.1.1. Pro: [Traffic congestion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion), which commonly occurs in or in the near-vicinity of cities can lead to drivers becoming frustrated and engaging in road rage.
1.2.2. Con: In cities in which ambulances are private or [demand greatly exceeds supply](https://www.kitchenertoday.com/local-news/too-many-calls-not-enough-ambulances-paramedics-overwhelmed-this-holiday-season-1177695), cars are an important way to transport people to emergency departments.
1.2.2.1. Con: In cities where cars are banned, the cost of road maintenance will plummet, accident rates will drop and the severity of accidents will drop. Ambulances will more available and cities could afford to make that service public.
1.2.3. Con: There is [high risk](https://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/a-hundred-pickpockets-operate-every-day-on-barcelona-s-metro) of being pick-pocketed on public transport.
1.2.4. Con: Harassment is [commonly experienced](https://www.metro-magazine.com/10111994/sexual-crime-and-harassment-on-public-transportation-a-study) on public transport. Cars can help people avoid this.
1.2.5. Con: Public transportation can [help spread diseases.](https://www.drugtargetreview.com/article/18013/pathogens-in-transport/)
1.2.6. Pro: Cars injure, disable, and an unbelievable number of people each year.
1.2.6.1. Pro: Many young and inexperienced new drivers [get into accidents](https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/heres-what-puts-teen-drivers-greatest-risk-crash) in the first few months because city roads are confusing and the drivers are aggressive.
1.2.6.2. Pro: Nearly [1.3 million](http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics) people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.
1.2.6.3. Con: Self-driving vehicles are likely to become the norm in the [near future](https://emerj.com/ai-adoption-timelines/self-driving-car-timeline-themselves-top-11-automakers/). When this happens, it may be safer to have private cars in cities.
1.2.6.3.1. Con: According to experts, even by 2034, self-driving vehicles will only make up [10%](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/29/experts-say-its-at-least-a-decade-before-you-can-buy-a-self-driving-car.html#:~:text=Among%20other%20findings%20in%20the,widespread%20public%20use%20until%202025.) of the total vehicles being bought and sold.
1.2.6.4. Pro: Although they are less likely to be fatal, the [majority](https://www.clarkewillmott.com/blog/rural-roads-dangerous-driving-towns-cities/) of car accidents happen in cities.
1.2.6.5. Pro: Taxis have [lower](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/nyregion/that-wild-taxi-ride-is-safer-than-you-think-a-study-says.html) rates of crashes than private vehicles.
1.3. Con: Banning of private cars will hurt the local economy.
1.3.1. Pro: Expansion of public transportation as a result of the car ban could harm businesses in the area.
1.3.1.1. Con: Expansion of public transportation has been shown to improve the [street life](https://www.citylab.com/life/2013/08/public-transit-worth-way-more-city-you-think/6532/) of cities and therefore bring financial benefit to cities.
1.3.1.2. Con: Increasing public transport will also reduce travel prices, benefitting poorer sections of society.
1.3.2. Con: Banning cars could also help the local economy by [catering to pedestrians](https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycling-and-economy) and [cyclists](https://futureplaceleadership.com/toolboxes/the-effect-of-pedestrianisation-and-bicycling-and-local-businesses/).
1.3.2.1. Pro: Pedestrianisation [increases retail shopping](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-05/cyclists-and-pedestrians-can-end-up-spending-more-each-month-than-drivers), and can open space for new activities which mitigate that effect.
1.3.2.2. Pro: A study found that cyclists spent [the most amount of money](https://momentummag.com/how-bicycles-bring-business/) at local businesses.
1.3.3. Pro: Public transport in large cities may be clogged during certain hours of the day. This inefficiency can prevent access to markets.
1.3.3.1. Pro: Cars are an inefficient form of transport in large cities and the traffic congestion they cause [results in economic losses.](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/traffic-congestion-cost-the-us-economy-nearly-87-billion-in-2018/#:~:text=In%20the%20US%2C%20it%20found,congestion%20to%20be%20%2487%20billion.&text=In%20terms%20of%20lost%20hours,Boston%2C%20Chicago%20and%20Washington%20DC.)
1.3.3.2. Con: Public transport with good planning can be easily unclogged.
1.3.4. Con: Challenging companies to adapt is the cornerstone of the free market. Protecting companies that rely on car traffic in large cities, according to free market economy, goes against our best interests.
1.3.5. Con: Private cars could still be used with a commercial license.
1.3.6. Pro: The loss of tax revenue from [car tax](https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/18150/vehicles.pdf) would be detrimental to the state, and society as a whole \(p. 785\).
1.3.6.1. Con: The state could compensate by increasing taxes to fund public transport.
1.3.6.2. Pro: In New York City, [1.4 million households](https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars) own a car, and each car has a series of [initial costs](https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/estimate-registration-fees-and-taxes) to be paid to the state for its registration.
1.3.6.3. Con: Many undesirable activities are highly taxed. It is perverse for governments to promote them to gain more revenue.
1.3.6.3.1. Pro: ['Sin taxes'](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sin_tax.asp) on cigarettes is a significant revenue stream for governments, but that does not mean governments should not take anti-smoking measures to promote citizens' health.
1.3.6.3.1.1. Con: Using that logic, states should disincentivise the use of cars by other means than banning in order to maintain the revenue source as they currently do for "sin taxes".
1.3.6.4. Con: Car owners' taxes and duties [do not cover the costs](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/) of maintaining the road network.
1.3.6.4.1. Con: Even if the roads are no longer used, it would be expensive and disruptive to the city to remove them and utilise the space in alternative ways.
1.3.6.4.2. Con: Even if they do not cover the costs of maintaining roads, the amount of tax taken in in relation to cars alleviates the need to cut funding from other areas to maintain roads.
1.3.6.4.3. Pro: In the U.S. each household subsidizes private car ownership by about [$1,100 per year](https://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay-themselves).
1.3.6.4.4. Pro: The major traffic caused by cars means roads [wear down](https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/61738/heavier-electric-cars-wear-out-roads-faster/) faster and need more upkeep as a result, causing a higher cost to the state.
1.4. Con: Banning cars in cities is unpopular.
1.4.1. Pro: The ability to travel by car is an important freedom for people to have.
1.4.1.1. Pro: Being able to travel by car allows people to have control over how, when, and where they travel. Only having public transport removes this control.
1.4.1.1.1. Pro: Many people living in large cities will vacation in the neighboring region, helping drive tourism. These areas are often only accessible by car.
1.4.1.1.1.1. Pro: Cape Cod, a popular destination from Boston, has a [large part](http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20120614/NEWS/206140343) of its economy depending on tourism.
1.4.1.1.1.2. Pro: [Residents](http://nhpr.org/topic/new-hampshire-tourism) of Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia make up a sizable portion of New Hampshire's visitors, helping drive the state's economy via tourism.
1.4.1.1.2. Con: That depends on how good provision for other modes of transport is and how imaginative people get with their transport options. For example, putting in park and ride facilities can enable people to travel by car to get to bus or train lines and then use those to get into the city. Parking outside the city centre is usually much cheaper than parking in it. People are adaptable and when one door closes there will be other options that open up.
1.4.1.1.3. Con: In built up areas like large cities, many places are within walking or cycling distance. The majority of people are still able to have agency over their travel.
1.4.1.1.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.7.
1.4.1.2. Con: Cars are extremely expensive to run: they only offer flexibility to the well-off.
1.4.1.2.1. Pro: Parking in cities can be exorbitantly expensive.
1.4.1.2.1.1. Pro: In San Francisco, the hourly rate of parking can be as high as[$4.25 an hour](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/san-francisco-parking-meters-among-most-expensive_n_1258025.html), which accumulates to a high cost to the individual each year.
1.4.1.2.2. Pro: The average cost of car insurance in Sydney is [1142.55 AUD](https://finance.nine.com.au/2016/10/07/11/45/watch-your-premiums-new-study-finds-car-insurance-hikes) per year.
1.4.1.2.3. Con: Forbidding cars will impact on the most vulnerable. Limiting their use and imposing heavily financial restraints will have the same impact. London has had [a 10% drop in volume](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Traffic_changes) over 10 years using a similar system
1.4.1.3. Con: The ability to travel by car or any other vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege.
1.4.1.3.1. Con: Possessing and using property is considered a right so long as it does not infringe on the life or property of another. Banning the property is not the only way to improve safety.
1.4.1.3.2. Con: Other forms of transit cause fatalities.
1.4.1.3.3. Pro: It is even more of a privilege given the external costs this form of transport places on society at large. Costs include lower road safety, the death toll and the injury rate created by a car focused transport system. There are also significant costs that result from disease caused by a lack of exercise. A further cost to society is the sheer amount of real estate each car takes up both on and off the road.
1.4.1.3.4. Con: Owning a vehicle is a privilege afforded by an individual's own finances and the automobile's engineering. A free market that allows purchase of a vehicle and travelling without restraint are rights afforded to everyone.
1.4.1.4. Con: Public and active transport builds community by providing opportunities for interaction between people that cars do not provide.
1.4.1.4.1. Pro: Ownership of private cars reinforces individualist and consumerist understandings of the city, which are important hindrances to efforts to promote urban sustainability
1.4.1.5. Con: The ability to walk on foot through the city is an important freedom, which is substantially reduced by the omnipresence of cars and the implied risks and regulations for pedestrians.
1.4.1.5.1. Pro: The number of pedestrian deaths were at an [all time high](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/pedestrian-deaths-hit-a-28-year-high-and-big-vehicles-and-smartphones-are-to-blame.html) in 2019.
1.4.1.6. Pro: People should be free to own property, such as cars, so long as that property is not physically harming human life.
1.4.1.7. Pro: A car can be a source of pleasure for its owner.
1.4.1.7.1. Pro: Owning a car can be [a hobby](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_car_on_societies#Cars_as_a_lifestyle).
1.4.1.7.1.1. Con: People can easily find more hobbies.
1.4.1.7.2. Pro: A car could provide aesthetical pleasure to its owner.
1.4.1.7.3. Con: Cars are [expensive](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/that-shiny-new-car-is-out-of-reach-for-many-americans.html) and so only accessible to a small minority of people. The pleasure of a few people should not be prioritized over the damage caused by private car ownership.
1.4.1.8. Pro: Cars provide a mobile room wherever you travel.
1.4.1.8.1. Pro: This offers privacy for commuters during travel that cannot be achieved by public transport.
1.4.1.8.2. Pro: Cars provide a cheap way of transporting items.
1.4.1.8.3. Pro: People [unable](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5212977/Californias-middle-class-homeless-living-parking-lots.html) to afford rent will sometimes live out of cars in parking lots.
1.4.1.8.4. Con: For most trips people don't have need for a mobile room.
1.4.1.9. Con: Cities are shared areas with limited space, and necessarily involve compromises as to the type of freedoms people can have within them.
1.4.1.9.1. Pro: [The harm principle](https://study.com/academy/lesson/john-stuart-mills-harm-principle-definition-examples-quiz.html) dictates that an individual's freedoms should be protected until they negatively impact other people.
1.4.1.9.2. Pro: In public transport the freedom of activity is greater than while driving a car, such as working while commuting.
1.4.1.9.2.1. Con: This freedom has less value when it is forced upon commuters who no longer have the choice in their mode of transportation.
1.4.1.9.2.2. Con: Public transport limits convenience, extends length of travel, limits destinations, restricts departure and arrival times, and lacks personal privacy.
1.4.1.9.3. Pro: Parents are less willing to let their children play in the street because of concerns about [traffic accidents](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/08/if-you-put-cars-first-kids-come-last/6470/).
1.4.2. Pro: The government must be beholden to its people. If the policy is unpopular and could possibly have adverse affects on the city, it would be immoral for the city government to implement it.
1.4.3. Pro: Oslo had to reverse its decision to ban cars as a result of [backlash](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/13/oslo-ban-cars-backlash-parking) from businesses and from the public.
1.4.3.1. Con: The cited article refers to the abrupt method Oslo tried to enforce the ban rather than the end goal. They still intend to ban all cars, but are now trying a more cautious approach.
1.4.4. Con: Banning cars could happen gradually \(e.g. city centre outwards\) and temporarily \(e.g. Sundays first\) to demonstrate the benefits and allow for adaptation.
1.4.5. Con: The popularity of legislation does not mean that the legislation is not the correct course of action.
1.4.5.1. Pro: Unpopularity of a proposal should not necessarily mean it doesn't go ahead. It is the government's responsibility to lead. If people are reluctant at first, the government has a responsibility to convince the people. That is part of what leadership is about.
1.4.5.2. Con: The government is supposed to represent the will of the people and the legislation it sets should reflect that.
1.4.5.2.1. Con: Legislation based on popular opinion has the potential to lead to a tyranny of the majority. Legislation should instead be based on careful consideration by those who have educated themselves on the subject, whether they are elected representatives or an involved citizens.
1.4.5.2.1.1. Pro: [Brexit](https://infacts.org/brexit-means-tyranny-majority/), the decision for the UK to leave the EU, is a modern instance of tyranny of the majority.
1.4.6. Con: Even if unpopular initially, this is likely to prove popular in the long term.
1.4.6.1. Pro: Smoking bans are frequently controversial when introduced, but widely supported after the fact, e.g. [support](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2010.00570.x) for a ban doubled in Australia after its introduction
1.4.6.2. Pro: Predicted traffic chaos outside the zone in which cars are prohibited does not materialise [\(Wallström, p.18\)](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf).
1.5. Pro: Cars make cities less habitable.
1.5.1. Con: Cities become less habitable at the point where it becomes very difficult for individuals to get around the city, which happens when private cars are banned.
1.5.1.1. Pro: Cities are often divided into different districts with different purposes, e.g. business districts. Difficulty getting around the city can mean difficulty accessing certain services.
1.5.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.7.1.
1.5.1.2. Con: Public services which otherwise would have limited mobility due to traffic would now be able to operate with higher efficiency.
1.5.1.2.1. Pro: Hospital personnel would be able to save more lives as ambulances would be able to reach their destinations more quickly.
1.5.1.2.2. Pro: The police would be able to carry out justice more efficiently as traffic wouldn't slow them down and as criminals wouldn't be able to escape using private cars.
1.5.1.2.3. Pro: Public transport such as buses and taxis would become more accessible as they wouldn't be limited by traffic to the same extent.
1.5.1.3. Con: People find it easier to get around their neighbourhoods when there is mass support for accessible public transport.
1.5.1.4. Con: Banning cars encourages [better city planning](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/16/banning-cars-city-centres-revolution-town-planning), reducing the need for cars in the future.
1.5.1.4.1. Pro: City planning can [prioritize pedestrian spaces](https://citymonitor.ai/transport/ban-cars-why-cities-are-embracing-the-call-for-car-free-streets) over roads if cars are banned.
1.5.2. Pro: Cars make the overall environment of cities less pleasant as they create a lot of [noise](https://www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/vehicle-noise#:~:text=Traffic%20noise%20has%20a%20major%20impact%20on%20human%20health.&text=According%20to%20the%20World%20Health,in%20children%20and%20sleep%20disturbance.).
1.5.3. Pro: The pollution caused by cars make the air in cities less breathable.
1.5.3.1. Pro: [Car emissions](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243514/) are increased during traffic-congestions which makes the pollution caused by cars in cities particularly high.
1.5.3.1.1. Pro: In New York City, traffic congestion results in an extra [129 hours](https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/trafficindex/city/new-york) of time on the road per car. Congestion therefore means a significant amount of pollutants being admitted by cars in large cities.
1.5.3.1.2. Pro: [New Delhi](https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhi-school-closed-till-sunday-says-minister-cites-poor-air-quality-1772719) recently had to close down all its schools because of pollution in the city.
1.5.3.1.3. Pro: China is currently planning to [get rid of 6 million cars](https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/china-to-scrap-millions-of-cars-to-ease-pollution) in an attempt to fight pollution in its cities.
1.5.3.2. Pro: Some environmental [experts](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/air-pollution-electric-car-ban-petrol-diesel-environment-professor-frank-kelly-london-emissions-a7878306.html) claim that more people switching to environmentally friendly cars is insufficient to deal with the toxic air in cities, and that a car ban is the only way to make sure that the air in cities is safe to breath.
1.5.3.3. Con: It is not cars, but the design and technology used to make them that is responsible for pollution. Technological improvements could [greatly limit](http://commutercars.com/) the pollution from cars.
1.5.3.4. Con: [Buses create as much or more air pollution](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/is-it-greener-to-travel-by-bus-or-by-car/) than cars.
1.5.3.4.1. Con: Because of the number of car users that buses can transport, public transport actually creates [less aggregate pollution](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/11/can-we-please-stop-pretending-cars-are-greener-transit/3960/).
1.5.3.4.1.1. Pro: According to the [source](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/is-it-greener-to-travel-by-bus-or-by-car/), only buses with fewer than 10 occupants will pollute more than the same number of people in cars. Buses carrying fewer than 10 people are relatively rare in large cities.
1.5.3.4.2. Con: Money spent on maintaining car-centric infrastructure could be used to research and develop new ways to build more compact, livable, human-centric cities that have little need for gas/electric transportation.
1.5.4. Pro: Cars reduce the number of people on the streets. Banning cars would enhance street-life which is what gives cities their culture and supports local businesses.
1.5.4.1. Pro: Pedestrianisation, and the ability to create more pleasant urban zones, complements cultural sites \([Sisman, p.415](http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/45407/InTech-Pedestrian_zones.pdf)\).
1.5.4.2. Pro: Pedestrianisation, and the ability to create more pleasant urban zones improves customer comfort, increasing the economic viability and diversity of an area \([Sisman, p.415](http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/45407/InTech-Pedestrian_zones.pdf)\).
1.5.4.3. Pro: -> See 1.4.1.9.3.
1.5.5. Con: For certain groups of people, cities are only habitable when they have access to private cars.
1.5.5.1. Con: This small minority can apply to drive a car in the city, especially disabled individual's. However those who are moving can rent a moving truck, and those driving to a hospital can be exempt or call either a taxi or an ambulance.
1.5.5.2. Con: To migitate this problem for everyone there's a need for better and more comprehensive public transportation systems.
1.5.5.3. Pro: For many disabled individuals, [driving their own car](https://www.passionatepeople.invacare.eu.com/wheelchair-friendly-cars/) is safer and more convenient.
1.5.5.4. Pro: In case of an emergency, a private car can transport a person to the hospital or the police more quickly.
1.5.6. Con: Alternatives to bans could be implemented to mitigate the negative effects of cars.
1.5.6.1. Pro: Toll roads could be used to reduce demand. Funds raised could offset public costs.
1.5.6.2. Pro: Government could issue fewer licenses to drive on public roads.
1.5.6.3. Pro: Singapore offers a good compromise example to follow. They have excellent public transport and cars pay a premium to enter the city. A complete ban is not practical.
1.5.6.3.1. Con: This could have the side effect if increasing wealth disparity, as richer families are more likely to be able to pay for the freedom of commuting in a car.
1.5.6.4. Pro: Inner city road networks could be designed to prioritise walking traffic, cycling traffic, and other trends like electric bikes and scooters. This would decrease the efficiency of cars and hence decrease the amount of people wanting to use them.
1.5.6.4.1. Pro: [The Netherlands](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/07/bicycle-friendly-city-utrecht-streetfilms-bike-lanes/593320/) have made heavy investments into prioritising biking and walking with great success.
1.5.6.5. Pro: Every family should have the right to own only one car. If a family wants more than one car, they should be taxed heavily.
1.5.6.5.1. Pro: The environmental impact of even one car is [significant](https://sites.psu.edu/perspectivesontheenvironment/2015/03/27/the-effects-of-automobiles-on-the-environment/). Reducing the number of cars overall would thus be a good policy.
1.5.7. Pro: Cars take up a lot of space that could be repurposed.
1.5.7.1. Con: Buses and trains also take up a lot of space as well. Eliminating cars creates a need for more alternative forms of transportation, meaning more train tracks and more bus stops/parking spaces.
1.5.7.1.1. Con: Private cars are generally a single use single occupant journey. Public transport is multiple use multiple occupant and uses space more efficiently as a result. [Car use efficiency is about 5%](http://fortune.com/2016/03/13/cars-parked-95-percent-of-time/) so the othe 95% of the time they just take up limited city space.
1.5.7.2. Con: It is question of \(private\) land pricing. There could be more underground parking lots or parking houses.
1.5.7.2.1. Con: Cars take up more space than other forms of transportation when they are [moving](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06IjfbqdnNM), too.
1.5.7.3. Pro: Space that cars use could be optimized for businesses, utilities, living space, or recreational use; improving the quality and economy of city life.
1.5.7.4. Pro: A lot of roads are required to enable travel by car within cities.
1.5.7.4.1. Pro: Even with many roads, peak hour traffic and traffic jams are [greatly exacerbated](https://drivetribe.com/p/does-adding-an-extra-driving-lane-E6FPiVJnQSCPun1-pS-Q-A?iid=GWg5cy4sQEGw8hujqfMb6w) by privately owned cars, which also [contribute to stress](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/stuck-in-traffic-snarls-it-can-cause-higher-chronic-stress-sleep-deprivation/articleshow/73929300.cms?from=mdr#:~:text=Being%20exposed%20to%20the%20daily,other%20motorists%20on%20the%20road.).
1.5.7.4.2. Con: A lot of these roads would still be needed after banning private cars for public transports such as buses and taxis to be able to operate within the city.
1.5.7.4.2.1. Pro: The roads are not only used by cars but are very important to trucks which deliver products to retail and industries in a city.
1.5.7.5. Pro: A lot of additional space is needed for parking lots.
1.5.7.5.1. Pro: These spaces could instead have been used to create more housing.
1.5.7.5.1.1. Con: More people living in the city would cause further pressure on the public transport system, making it less efficient.
1.5.7.5.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.4.
1.5.7.5.1.1.2. Con: -> See 1.1.4.2.
1.5.7.5.2. Con: High density cities can allow for high density parking, both above and below street level.
1.6. Pro: Cars are bad for the environment.
1.6.1. Pro: The use of cars causes major pollution.
1.6.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.3.1.
1.6.1.2. Pro: [Air pollution](http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829) causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. Vehicle emissions are the biggest contributor to these premature deaths.
1.6.1.3. Con: In the case of pollution, only hybrid and electric cars could be allowed in large cities.
1.6.1.4. Con: The violation of human rights comes from the toxin, not the vehicle. Ban or limit pollution instead of the car.
1.6.1.4.1. Pro: There are a limited number of private cars available, if any, which do not contribute to pollution in the manner described.
1.6.1.5. Pro: [Noise pollution](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1984006314000601), particularly from transportation sources, is a major cause of stress and sleep disturbances with important health impacts
1.6.1.6. Con: Cars are now being increasingly made more emission compliant and the stringent enforcement of emission norm compliances. Leading automobile manufacturers are switching over to hybrid systems to reduce carbon footprints.
1.6.1.7. Con: Other alternatives are either not feasible or would cause similar levels of pollution if cars were banned.
1.6.1.7.1. Pro: Bikes and walking are not feasible for all people who live in cities.
1.6.1.7.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.3.4.
1.6.1.8. Pro: [Car pollution](https://sciencing.com/effects-car-pollutants-environment-23581.html) is one of the major causes of climate change.
1.6.1.9. Pro: The [air pollution](https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health) caused by cars increases respiratory ailments like asthma and bronchitis, and heightens the risk of life-threatening conditions like cancer.
1.6.1.10. Con: [Powering cars using greener technology](http://age.com/article/global-news/green-marketing-consumers-environmentally-friendly-cars/137945/) will mean this problem disappears without the need for a blanket ban.
1.6.1.10.1. Con: Switching to an electric car can cause additional [environmental harm](https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/) as the [production](https://www.ivl.se/english/startpage/top-menu/pressroom/press-releases/press-releases---arkiv/2017-06-21-new-report-highlights-climate-footprint-of-electric-car-battery-production.html) of electric cars is harmful to the environment.
1.6.1.10.1.1. Con: According to [research](https://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/winter16-electric-vehicles-just-how-green-are-they), while the production of electric car batteries causes higher emissions from the manufacturing of an electric car than a gas-powered car, these manufacturing emissions are offset by reduced emissions from driving: after 4,900 miles, of driving the midsize electric car, and within 19,000 miles, of driving the full-size model.
1.6.1.10.2. Pro: Although it requires a system of hydrogen fuel delivery, hydrogen-powered cars are now a [feasible](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/15/world/riversimple-hydrogen-cars-wales/index.html) zero-emissions option for the future.
1.6.1.10.3. Pro: [One third of cars](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/25/norway-leads-way-electric-cars-green-taxation-shift) sold in Norway are electric or hybrid; it is realistic to think over the coming decades they will become the predominant type of car in many cities.
1.6.2. Pro: Banning cars encourages people to adopt alternative means of travel, such as travel by bike or by foot.
1.6.2.1. Pro: Cities are very dense, and most locations you need to get to will be close enough for the trip to not require a car.
1.6.2.1.1. Con: The [density](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density#Cities_by_population_density) of a city can vary wildly.
1.6.2.2. Pro: Travelling by [bike](https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/cycling-health-benefits#:~:text=Cycling%20can%20help%20to%20protect,%2C%20park%2C%20school%20or%20work.)/[foot](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/in-depth/walking/art-20046261) is good for individuals' physical and mental health.
1.6.2.2.1. Pro: People who commute by bike are more [productive](https://www.triplepundit.com/special/business-of-biking/biking-improves-employee-productivity/) than those who drive and also take fewer sick days.
1.6.2.2.1.1. Con: This is likely because active people tend to choose to cycle to work. Cycling, productivity and low sickness share the same common cause. Forcing someone to cycle wouldn’t change their productivity or sickness.
1.6.2.2.1.1.1. Con: Exercise increases your [productivity](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-pozen/exercise-productivity_b_2005463.html?guccounter=1).
1.6.2.2.1.1.2. Con: Exercise [boosts](https://www.livescience.com/36723-exercise-life-expectancy-overweight-obese.html) your lifespan.
1.6.2.2.2. Con: It is more time consuming and physically intense.
1.6.2.2.3. Pro: Commuters who travel by bike are the happiest, whilst those who drive are the [least happy](https://www.outsideonline.com/1795631/study-bike-commuters-are-happiest).
1.6.2.3. Con: There are ways to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport without having to ban cars completely.
1.6.2.3.1. Con: If cars are a relatively inexpensive option that requires significantly less effort and contact with strangers, people will always take that option.
1.6.2.3.1.1. Con: In the long run, owning and driving a private car is [more expensive](https://www.thoughtco.com/public-transit-or-drive-cost-2798677) than using public transport.
1.6.2.3.2. Pro: Cities could be redesigned to prioritise cyclists and walkers.
1.6.2.3.2.1. Pro: The bike-friendly [infrastructure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands#Infrastructure) in the Netherlands has made bicycling so popular that [36%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands) of the people list the bicycle as their most frequent mode of transport on a typical day.
1.6.2.3.2.2. Pro: Urban planners in [Madrid, Spain](http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-going-car-free-ban-2017-8?IR=T#madrids-planned-ban-is-even-more-extensive-2) are redesigning the city's 24 busiest streets for walking rather than driving. The cost of parking is also going to be increased, and drivers who ignore the new rules will have to pay large fines.
1.6.2.3.2.3. Pro: Architects in [Chengdu, China](http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-going-car-free-ban-2017-8?IR=T#people-in-chengdu-china-will-be-able-to-walk-anywhere-in-15-minutes-or-less-3) designed a new residential area where it's easier to walk than to drive; the layout allows people to walk anywhere within 15 minutes, and in the future cars will only be allowed on half of the city's roads.
1.6.2.3.2.4. Pro: [Hamburg, Germany](http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-going-car-free-ban-2017-8?IR=T#hamburg-is-making-it-easier-not-to-drive-4) plans to make walking and cycling its main mode of transport by only allowing bikers and pedestrians to access certain areas of the city.
1.6.2.3.2.5. Pro: In [Copenhagen, Denmark](http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-going-car-free-ban-2017-8?IR=T#bikes-continue-to-rule-the-road-in-copenhagen-5) over half the population cycles to work, thanks to the city's efforts to introduce pedestrian-only zones from the 1960s. The city's extensive network \(200 miles\) of bike lanes contributed to the low levels of car ownership in the city \(the lowest in Europe\).
1.6.2.3.3. Pro: The use of cars could be restricted according to certain criteria.
1.6.2.3.3.1. Pro: In [Paris, France](http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-going-car-free-ban-2017-8?IR=T#paris-will-ban-diesel-cars-and-double-the-number-of-bike-lanes-6) cars made before 1997 are not allowed to drive in the city on weekdays, and there are also plans to increase the number of 'car-free days' in the city.
1.6.2.3.3.2. Pro: Several [cities](http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-going-car-free-ban-2017-8?IR=T#berlin-is-building-bike-super-highways-9) - Paris, London, Berlin - are banning cars that do not fulfil certain emissions standards.
1.6.2.4. Con: This is possible in areas with really good public transportation and cheap bicycles but makes the lives of people who do not live in these areas significantly harder.
1.6.2.4.1. Con: This would encourage these people to lobby the local governments for better transport in their areas, mitigating the problem in the long run.
1.6.2.4.2. Con: Shared-vehicle models are more efficient and cost-effective than private autos. Shared autonomous vehicles need not be privately owned.
1.6.2.4.2.1. Con: Allowing shared-vehicle models to continue despite the ban would remove many of the benefits of banning cars, because people would simply shift to nominally sharing a car with others.
1.6.2.4.2.1.1. Con: The benefits of banning cars is related to number of vehicles, not their ownership. If commercial vehicles \(including buses, taxis\) are permitted, ride-sharing non-commercial vehicles would certainly qualify.
1.6.2.4.2.2. Pro: Co-operative car share models have proven very successful and affordable in major cities that have implemented them. Vancouver, Canada supports 4 car co-operatives with rapidly increasing membership. Convenience is the main reason for increased interest, including access to [different types of vehicles](http://theprovince.com/news/local-news/convenience-key-reason-for-car-sharing-b-c-survey/wcm/48d4260e-ff51-4f2a-94c7-377b3366468f) and ability to [rent cars hourly](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/finding-the-right-car-share-company-for-you-1.2760075)
1.6.2.5. Pro: These means of travel can [significantly cut down](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200317-climate-change-cut-carbon-emissions-from-your-commute) pollution.
1.6.3. Pro: Forbidding ownership of cars will lead to less production of cars, which is a process that causes [significant pollution](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car#:~:text=Making%20a%20new%20car%20creates,upgrade%20to%20a%20greener%20model.).
1.6.3.1. Con: Cars that are used more frequently will wear out faster.
1.6.3.2. Pro: [Cars are parked 95%](https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/02/cars-are-parked-95-of-time-lets-check.html) of the time, indicating that people do not have any pressing need for cars in their daily lives.
1.6.4. Pro: Managing pollution and climate change is a [global priority.](https://www.peacebrigades.org/en/news/fighting-climate-change-global-priority)
1.6.4.1. Pro: [The Paris Agreement \(2015\)](https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement) commitment would require most cities to become climate neutral in the coming decades in order to keep global temperature rise below 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
1.6.4.1.1. Pro: This kind of low carbon transition in cities would be accelerated if cars were gradually phased-out.
1.6.4.2. Con: Banning cars may not be the best or most feasible option to reach this goal.
1.7. Con: No other form of transportation is as flexible as cars.
1.7.1. Con: -> See 1.4.1.2.
1.7.2. Con: In big cities traveling by car is not very flexible because of crowded traffic.
1.7.3. Pro: An individual's day must be planned around an outside schedule if they depend on public transport; this restriction is not the case when they can use a private car.
1.7.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.4.1.
1.7.3.2. Con: In Europe, in particular in Germany, in the cities with population around 100 thousand people, buses come at intervals ranging from [10 to at most 30 minutes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Berlin#Berlin_Public_Transportation_Statistics) \(in the most remote and least populated areas\) from early morning to late evening, and hourly night buses are available. There is no need to schedule the day there.
1.7.3.3. Con: An individual's day must be planned around unpredictable traffic congestion. Public transit systems are better able to communicate delays.
1.7.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.7.4.1.
1.7.5. Pro: [Greater](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/stranded-how-americas-failing-public-transportation-increases-inequality/393419/) geographic mobility has been linked to economic mobility.
1.7.6. Con: Bikes are more flexible than cars. They don't get stuck in traffic, they go from door to door, and they take up no parking space. Where roads are damaged, you can still move around them on a bicycle.
1.7.6.1. Con: While bikes are more flexible under defined distances, over longer distances the time taken to travel negates the advantage of a bicycle.
1.7.6.1.1. Con: Some people are okay with being outside getting fresh air and exercising even if it takes longer.
1.7.6.1.2. Con: If time spent exercising is included, it takes less time to ride a bike \(get around and exercise\) instead of driving and then exercising at the gym after that.
1.7.7. Con: Driving more people to use public transit could lead to more viable expansion and accessibility to people in neighbourhoods that might not otherwise get public transit with the popularity of cars.
1.7.8. Pro: People on long road trips often have to pass through cities, or else make their route substantially longer.
1.7.8.1. Con: People can make long trips using public transportation system.
1.7.8.2. Con: Congestion in cities often means that purpose built orbital routes around cities provide a quicker route for those who do not need to enter the city.
1.7.9. Con: In a large city public and active transport designs can ensure these options offer flexibility more or less equal to the car.
1.7.9.1. Pro: Cars are only "flexible" because cities are built around them. They require enormous amounts of infrastructure.
1.7.10. Pro: Certain groups of people cannot easily travel by public transport, even if provision is excellent.
1.7.10.1. Con: Some disabled people cannot drive a car but can use public transport.
1.7.10.2. Pro: Some disabled people require cars to transport them.
1.7.10.2.1. Con: Cities can provide alternative options for disabled people in order to make travelling within cities more accessible.
1.7.10.2.1.1. Pro: People in [Sweden](https://www.independentliving.org/docs3/stileng.html) who have great difficulty travelling or using public transport can receive subsidized taxi cab transportation and segregated paratransit.
1.7.10.2.1.2. Pro: [Queensland](https://www.qld.gov.au/disability/out-and-about/taxi-subsidy) offers taxi subsidies to disabled residents.
1.7.10.2.2. Pro: Sensory and social differences that children with autism often possess can make using public transport an [extremely stressful](https://www.ambitiousaboutautism.org.uk/understanding-autism/out-and-about/using-public-transport) experience.
1.7.10.2.3. Pro: Navigation and the behaviour of other commuters during rush hour means, even when disabled people are capable of using public transport, it is an [unpleasant experience](http://content.tfl.gov.uk/Exploring-the-journey-experiences-of-disabled-commuters-report.pdf).
1.7.10.3. Pro: Parents with young children struggle on public transport.
1.7.10.3.1. Pro: During busy periods, there is often [little room](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/03/29/buggy-wars-why-is-it-so-difficult-to-take-public-transport-with-kids_n_7393036.html) on public transport for buggies.
1.7.10.3.1.1. Con: Higher frequencies of public transport will reduce crowding, therefore making more room for buggies.
1.7.10.3.2. Pro: Given children can get upset easily, it is very [stressful](https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/little-kids/94292816/the-worlds-intolerance-for-noisy-babies-says-a-lot-about-how-women-are-viewed) for parents to look after them in public spaces.
1.7.10.3.3. Con: Public transport can be designed to take into account all of the different needs of its users e.g. by providing space for buggies, or providing ramps for people with wheelchairs.
1.7.10.3.4. Con: It is really stressful trying to drive around a city when kids in the car are upset.
1.7.10.4. Con: -> See 1.1.4.2.
1.7.10.5. Pro: People who do not have a regular place of work, such as contractors, cannot guarantee public transportation is suitable to get to work from their home.
1.7.11. Pro: Cars are useful for emergencies.
1.7.11.1. Con: Emergency vehicles would be allowed to drive around in addition to public transport vehicles.